Kyoto Protocol

[DingHao2]

Seems that everywhere, the europeans and some asians are ganging up against the US just because the economy of the US is huge.  Kyoto must be another example.

Facts About Global Warming:

1. Average Temperature in the Creataceous Period: 77ºF (45ºF warmer than current temp.)
2. Average Temperature in the Jurassic Period: 75ºF (43ºF warmer than current temp.)
3. Average Temperature in the Tertiary Period: 68ºF (36ºF warmer than current temp.)

The graph that I see is that the temperature we are at now is not normal: it is a mini-ice age.  If is was normal, then is would be about 25-30ºF warmer than it currently is.  In addition, the CO2 levels vary naturally from period to period--nothing to do w/ industry.  In the last 500 years of industrialization, the temperature has slightly decreased.  So, it appears that temperature variations are normal, naturally produced variations.  No need for the Kyoto Protocol, unless the Europeans want to wreak havoc on the US economy.

[R4M]

yeah please another round of "the earth wont overheat because god wont let it to happen"

 

[DingHao2]

No...im saying that the climatic temperature variations are naturally produced, not produced as a result of industrialization.  If you have any evidence of your beliefs that grobal warming is a direct result of industry, plz post it.

[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Ding_Hao ]

[bigUC]

... and when the earth was in its infancy it was actually glowing and burning!  Yes its obviously a sneaky eurotrash scheme to hurt US business!  

if u wanna toejam, take a dump in your OWN backyard - not mine!  My kids play there...

[R4M]

Originally posted by Ding_Hao:
No...im saying that the climatic temperature variations are naturally produced, not produced as a result of industrialization.

Frankly, the thing about god not letting the global warming happen at least was laughable...but this is reaching the point where it is sad.

[Dowding]

Ask the Swedes and Norwegions about fossil fuel burning and it's repercussions.

Sulphur dioxide (from British coal-burning powerstations) and water (from the err... sky) mix to form sulphuric acid which dropped all over the scandinavian landscape in the 1970/80s. Trees dies, lakes were sterilised of aquatic life above the size of a microbe.

That is one reason why fossil fuel emissions need to be reduced - it's not just about global warming.

And this US vs Europe thing is a little bit over-played. If you look at the economy of the EU and that of the US, they are of similar sizes.

The US has a GDP of $9 trillion
EU has a GDP of $8.5 trillion

The only reason the US will suffer more than the EU, is that Americans are much more 'dirty' when it comes to carbon emissions, the chief indicator of greenhouse gas release. In 1998, EU citizens produced 2.4 metric tonnes of carbon per person compared to a figure 5.5 tonnes for inhabitants of the US.

[jihad]

It would be stupid of the US to sign off on a treaty that would cripple our economy, whats so farking hard to understand about that?

[DingHao2]

If emmissions are so harmful, then why has there been a decrease in global tempuratures in the last 500 years--when industrialization occured.  I cant stress this point too much.

[Yoj]

Originally posted by Ding_Hao:
If emmissions are so harmful, then why has there been a decrease in global tempuratures in the last 500 years--when industrialization occured.  I cant stress this point too much.

Sure you can    

You look at blanket facts and make blanket generalizations from them.  (By the way - are you actually saying the the Earth's current average temperature is 32 deg. F?) ("3. Average Temperature in the Tertiary Period: 68ºF (36ºF warmer than current temp.)

Its true that some 90 million years ago the Earth was warmer.  30 million years later it got a lot colder.  Things happen - having a chunk of Nickel-Steel the size of a goodly mountain travelling at high mach hit the ground will tend to muck up your climate.  Whatever happened back then has nothing to do with the effects of industrialization, which is at best less than 200 years old - and the fact is that temperatures have increased over that time.

I'm not saying that the fact that industrialization is directly causing global warming is entirely proved (though it is the current concensus of scientists in the field), but throwing in facts from the geological record is a red herring - it has absolutely nothing to do with the question.

And, as Dowding rightly points out, its far from the only reason to take a hard look at the effects of modern industry.

- Yoj

[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Yoj ]

[Yoj]

Originally posted by jihad:
It would be stupid of the US to sign off on a treaty that would cripple our economy, whats so farking hard to understand about that?

Jihad do you have any idea of the amount of money to be made by (for example) limiting CO2 emissions?  Impact the US economy?  Certainly.  Wreck it?  Not a chance.  All it will do is create a need for new products and services and new ways to make money.  Some businesses will be harmed and some will do very well - which is the nature of a free market.  No business gets a guarantee that changes won't hurt them - nor should they, not if you believe in a free market economy.

- Yoj

[blur]

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming.asp

[Fury]

The real reason that the US wants to back out of it is because we are the center of the universe and it's in our best interest to slowly destroy the planet through global warming.  And if that takes too long then we'll just provoke a nuke war by building ABMs.  At least that will take care of the global warming issue.  That's why we elected Bush -- the evil capitalists want to destroy the planet.
 

[funkedup]

Yoj you learned economics from a cereal box?
 Diverting resources from producing things people and businesses want or need to producing emissions reduction goods and services is going to lead to greater prosperity?  All it's going to do is make people work more and more to get the same things they have now.

To argue that reducing emissions is worth a  reduction in standard of living is one thing, but to deny that the standard of living will not decline is ridiculous.

[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[DingHao2]

All im saying with these facts about the temp of the earth millions of years ago is that variations in the earth's climate are natural.  In the last 10 years, the average temperature has actually decreased.  The current av. temp is hovering around 32ºF.  And, for your information, it was not an asteroid that killed the dinos...it was sudden climatic change @ the end of the Cretacious period--this means that species naturally go extinct because of climatic change (which is natural) and natural selection.  And regulation is not the equivalent of a free market economy--regulation=a mixed economy. (communism if the regulation is taken to the extreme--but im sure that none of us are commie bastards)

[StSanta]

Ding, I don't see it as the Euros and Japanese ganging up on the Americans.

I see it as the Americans not wanting to take part in an agreement.

For once, the US big muscles won't beat other countries into submission. The US is quite isolated in its approach to dealing with by not dealing with unhealthy emissions.

It's important that the US economy doesn't slow down. It's equally important that the EU one, which is of comparative size doesn't either. Or the Asian one which is sizeable as well.

It's also very important that we do not screw ourselves on the long term by thinking short term.

So, the biggest polluter in the world does not want to take part - well, if the current countries do, it still means significantly lower emissions.

Twice as much polluting as the EU - and you do not produce *that* more goods and services in the US  .

For me, this isn't a "world vs US" or anything relating to countries in that effect. It's simply dealing with the side effects of pollution, and unfortunately this has to be done across borders.